FIFTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 39234\/07
\nAkif AZIMOV
\nagainst Azerbaijan<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Erik M\u00f8se, President,
\nS\u00edofra O\u2019Leary,
\nL\u04d9tif H\u00fcseynov, judges,
\nand Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2007,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr AkifAzimov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1954 and lives in Baku. He was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0A. Gasimli, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Azerbaijani Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr \u00c7. Asgarov.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 March 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant and his family, consisting of twelve people, occupied part of an old, deserted State-owned building in the territory of the State Historical-Architectural Reserve of Icherisheher in Baku, managed by the Department of the State Historical\u2011Architectural Reserve of Icherisheher (\u201cthe Department\u201d). After occupying the building, the applicant carried out construction works and repaired the water, plumbing and electricity systems.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 July 2003 the head of the Sabail District Executive Authority (\u201cthe SDEA\u201d) issued an order allocating a flat of 35.3 sq. m. located in the building in question to E.D.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant lodged a claim with the Sabail District Court against the Department seeking the recognition of his property rights in respect of the part of the building in which he and his family had been living. E.D. joined the proceedings as a third party and lodged a counter-claim seeking the eviction of the applicant and his family from the building.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 October 2004 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim and upheld E.D.\u2019s counter-claim, finding that the applicant and his family had unlawfully occupied the building.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0After a series of appeals, on 21 November 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 February 2006 the applicant and his family were evicted from the building, in accordance with the judgment of 12 October 2004.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 April 2006 the head of the SDEA issued a further order allocating the part of the building previously occupied by the applicant (43.5\u00a0sq. m), to E.D. at her request.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court\u2019s judgment of 21 November 2005.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 May 2006 the applicant lodged a claim against the SDEA and E.D. asking for annulment of the orders of 9 July 2003 and 14 April 2006.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 June 2006 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim, finding that there had been no grounds for the annulment of the orders. The court referred to the judgments within the framework of the first set of proceedings and held that it had already been established that the applicant and his family had not had any rights to the building and had to be evicted.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 September 2006 the Court of Appeal and on 8 February 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings instituted by him against the SDEA and E.D. had not been fair. In particular he argued that the domestic courts had been biased and that they had not examined the relevant evidence correctly.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his home had been violated on account of his eviction from the building.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that his right to property had been violated on account of his eviction from the building, because he had carried out repair works in the building at his own expense to render it fit for residential purposes.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that his right to property and right to respect for his home had been violated on account of his eviction from the building, given that he had carried out repair works in the building at his own expense to make it fit for residential purposes. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, as far as relevant, read as follows:<\/p>\n Article 8<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to respect for … his home …<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 1 of Protocol No. 1<\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.\u201d<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 arguments<\/em><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the application had been introduced outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the final domestic decision in the applicant\u2019s case had been the judgment of the Supreme Court of 28 April 2006.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0In his observations the applicant indicated that the final domestic decision referred to by the Government had been delivered in a different set of proceedings and that the final domestic decision in his case had been the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 8 February 2007.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that, under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, it may only examine complaints in respect of which domestic remedies have been exhausted and which have been submitted within six months of the date of the \u201cfinal\u201d domestic decision.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present case, the Court observes that by its judgment of 28 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts\u2019 judgments, finding that the applicant and his family had had no property rights in respect of the building and ordering their eviction on that ground.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the second set of proceedings initiated by the applicant for the annulment of the orders of the SDEA allocating the residential premises to E.D. cannot be taken into account for the purpose of the six-month rule. In those proceedings the domestic courts rejected the applicant\u2019s challenge to orders granting rights in respect of the premises in issue to a third person. In doing so they noted that the applicant\u2019s claim in respect of those premises had been rejected with final effect in an earlier set of proceedings terminated by the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 28 April 2006.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently, the final decision in respect of the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 was the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 28 April 2006. As the application was lodged with the Court on 7 August 2007, these complaints must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention, as being out of the six\u2011month time-limit.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the civil proceedings instituted by him against the SDEA and E.D. (see paragraphs 13-15 above) had not been fair. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, as far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.\u201d<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 arguments<\/em><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant argued that the domestic courts had been biased and that they had not examined the relevant evidence correctly.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the Sabail District Court had dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim, finding that there had been no grounds for the annulment of the orders.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds that, in so far as the applicant complains of the domestic courts\u2019 assessment of the evidence and interpretation of the law and challenges the outcome of the proceedings, the application is of a \u201cfourth-instance\u201d nature. The applicant was able to make submissions before the courts, which examined those submissions. Their decisions do not appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, and there is nothing to suggest that the proceedings were otherwise unfair.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 19 July 2018.<\/p>\n Claudia Westerdiek\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Erik M\u00f8se
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n